TOPIC:Performance Audit of Child Welfare
OFFICE:Auditor / STATE:VT / DATE:04/15/2014
QUESTION / ISSUE:The Vermont State Auditor’s Office is interested in getting information on performance audits that have been issued (or are in process) regarding state or local decisions in removing and returning children from/to their homes when there have been allegations of physical abuse.
In addition to a copy/link to any audit reports that have been issued, we would be interested in knowing:
  1. Whether any national criteria (e.g., best practices for caseloads) in this area were identified.
  2. Whether any performance standards (national or state-specific) were identified to evaluate the decisions that were made.
  3. 3What, if any, obstacles were encountered in performing this type of audit and what strategy was used to overcome the obstacle.

State / Comments
California / Here are couple links to our recent reports regarding this topic:


Georgia / At this time, the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts has not completed any audits or reviews regarding state or local decisions in removing and returning children from/to their homes when there have been allegations of physical abuse.While we did complete an audit on our statewide automated child welfare information system (Georgia SHINES), we did not identify any standards or best practices regarding case management or the decision making process for removing children.A copy of the Georgia Shines report and any other audits we’ve performed in the last few years can be found on our website at
Kansas / Here is a link to a 2012 report that might be of interest:
Michigan / Last month the Michigan Office of the Auditor General released an audit of the Families First of Michigan Program which focused on the Michigan Department of Human Services' efforts to monitor contracted agencies that provided in-home services to families with children with substantiated child abuse, neglect, or delinquency.Although that audit did not address your specific issue of removing children from the home, our audit did make reference to the Child Welfare League of America's Standards of Excellence.Please visit for more information.I have attached the Table of Contents of the CWLA's Standards of Excellence for Services for Abused or Neglected Children and Their Families for your reference.The CWLA sells the actual set of standards on their website.The CWLA also has a broader set of 13 volumes of Standards of Excellence covering a wide range of child welfare services.Also consider exploring for additional information.

Missouri / The following audit reports (available at may include some information relevant to your inquiry:
No. 2000-132, Audit of Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting and Response System (This report refers to certain external models or performance standards and includes Appendix IV, a summary of best practices identified in other states.)
No. 2004-27, Follow-Up of Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting and Response System.
If you have questions about current procedures for protection of children, please see the Department of Social Services Website at
New York / We are currently working on an audit of County Child Protective Services.Our audit is in the fieldwork phase and the objective is:
Have county CPS units established measurable recurrence rate reduction goals, implementation plans and progress tracking mechanisms, and are the recurrence rates declining as a result?
Unfortunately I don't believe we have obtained any information that you will find useful.We did not look at, or question, the decisions CPS made.Removing a child is a last resort, they try and keep the family united.The units indicated its difficult to remove a child, courts are reluctant to do it.
  1. We did not look at caseload management and did not useor look for national criteria, we did a correlation analysis to seeif a correlation exists between the caseload size and recurrence.
  2. We did not look at or evaluate the decisions made.
  3. We were precluded from looking at unfounded cases, thisobstacle was not overcome.

Tennessee / The Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury’s Division of State Audit, sunset audit group, recently issued a report on the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, including its child protective services (CPS) function.The report is available at
In short to address your questions:
  1. The most accepted and ideal standards are promulgated through the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA).The official title is:“Standards of Excellence:CWLA Standards of Excellent for Services for Abused or Neglected Children and Their Families”.Unfortunately, you have to be a CWLA member to order a copy.I’ve always just asked whatever state department houses the CPS function for a Xerox copy and they’ve always obliged because it’s the undisputed standards source.In Xerox form, it should be an inch and a half thick.Additionally, the federal Children’s Bureau ( runs an extensive warehouse of literature and best practices.The current URL is They also have a wide-variety of list-servs, which are very good.
  2. I’d recommend sticking to the department’s manual, state law, and the CWLA standards.Generally, I always find enough examples where they fail to follow their own standards/protocols that I don’t have to go into challenging qualitative decisions.For example, usually you’ll find less supervisory review than the state itself calls for. In those cases where I’ve challenged basic qualitative decisions, I always start a sample from the cases which their own internal review process (required by the federal government) has found to be problematic – which gives the auditors more leverage in saying a poor decision was made.
  3. CPS auditing is unique and challenging.One of the biggest auditing challenge is incomplete casework documentation.Many caseworkers don’t necessarily see the value in it – their focus is on serving children and many think of documentation as just silly, wasted time paperwork.As a result, you will have incomplete records.For example, even if the state is officially completely online via a SACWIC system (a federally paid-for child welfare case management system), many fields will be empty.The missing information may or may not be available in hard-copy form out in the local offices.Make sure you review both paper and electronic files, even if the online system is the official record. To get around this, some state CPS departments mandate key fields – i.e., those fields that the caseworkers must enter.If your state uses key fields, I’d highly recommend to using just those fields for large scale data analysis.In addition to adding auditor time and burden, this lack of casework documentation also tends to lead to findings that are heavily qualified because you can never have assurance whether something really happened, just that there’s no documentation of it, i.e., the department is unable to demonstrate, or the department is unable to document that it makes good decisions, etc.I’ve never found a way around this – just know that it’s a common problem.Another huge challenge is that CPS file review is emotionally very hard on audit staff.It has to be done, butexpect the team will have to do some processing, for lack of a better word.

Performance Audit of Child Welfare1